The protester alleged the agency ignored “close-at-hand” corporate experience information. GAO, however, said an agency only has to consider close-at-hand information when evaluating past performance. An agency is not required to consider close-at-hand information when assessing experience.
VectorCSP, LLC, GAO B-421764, B-421764.4
- Unequal Evaluation of Experience – The protester and the awardee each submitted a corporate experience reference on which they had served as prime contractors. The agency found the protester’s reference was not relevant. The protester argued the agency disparately evaluated the references. GAO disagreed. The protester’s reference did not involve specialized employees and did not align with the solicitation’s requirements.
- Close-at-Hand – The protester submitted an experience reference performed by a subcontractor. The agency found the reference wasn’t relevant. The protester objected, contending the reference was the predecessor to the incumbent contract. The protester argued the agency should’ve recognized the similarity of this reference due to the agency’s knowledge of the predecessor contract. GAO reasoned the protester was essentially arguing that information on the predecessor contract was too close at hand for the agency to ignore. But GAO noted an agency is only required to consider close-at-hand information for past performance. The doctrine does not apply to experience.
- Awardee’s Subcontractor Reference – The protester argued the agency unreasonably evaluated one of the awardee’s references. The protester argued the subcontractor was not going to fulfill a similar function and level of effort on the current contract as it had on the referenced contract. GAO rejected the argument. The solicitation did not require subcontractors to fulfill a similar function at the same level of effort. It only required the subcontractor to provide similar services. The awardee’s subcontractor had satisfied this less stringent standard.
- Weaknesses – The protester objected to weaknesses assessed to its management approach. GAO found the weaknesses were warranted or that the protester’s arguments amounted to disagreement with the agency.
The protester is represented by Stephanie M. Harden, David L. Bodner, and Oliver E. Jury of Blank Rome LLP. The awardee is represented by Stephen P. Ramaley, C. Peter Dungan, Roger V. Abbott, and Lauren S. Fleming of Miles & Stockbridge LLC. The agency is represented by Gabriel D. Soll and Mark J. Wisniewski of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Kenneth L. Kilgour and Jennifer D., Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
